Research School Network: Improving Secondary Science programme, March – June 2023. An inspiration. Written by Imogen Sahi, Leader of Teaching and Learning – KS3 Science, at the Blue School Wells.

What is the nature and shape of the educational beast on which we are riding and how can we develop further as science education practitioners?.…. It is a significant challenge to find the energy, space and time to engage in the process of reflection on these essential questions whilst immersed deep in the daily job of teaching. Driving over the Somerset levels last March, the trees were still bleakly bare and I was feeling equally retracted in energy. That day, I began what I now realise was the most helpful and enriching CPD that I have engaged in for over 20 years: Improving Secondary Science. The course was run by the West Somerset Research School based at the Blue School in Wells. It spanned four months and was delivered with the personalised and inspirational energy of Racheal Hofgartner – West Somerset Research School’s Secondary Science Evidence Lead in Education.

That first day began with Tom Colquhoun from West Somerset Research School clearly setting out the context and background to the course: Research shows us that disadvantaged students start to fall behind in science as early as Key Stage 1 and the gap only widens throughout primary and secondary phases. The EEF reviewed the international research and consulted with experts to identify key principles for effective secondary science teaching to tackle the challenge of bridging this gap. They produced the Improving Secondary Science Guidance Report which focuses on the strategies which are most likely to have a positive impact for students.

EEF’s Improving Secondary Science guidance report:

• Preconceptions: build on the ideas that pupils bring to lessons
• Self-regulation: help pupils direct their own learning
• Modelling: use models to support understanding
• Memory: support pupils to retain and retrieve knowledge
• Practical work: use practical work purposefully and as part of a learning sequence
• Language of science: develop scientific vocabulary and support pupils to read and write about science
• Feedback: use structured feedback to move on pupil’s thinking

Whilst this report has been somewhere in the background of my teaching since its publication in 2018, the daily business of getting on with the job frequently dominate. This course completely changed that. It has inspired me to interrogate my own practice and refocus how to tackle common challenges in science teaching.

I particularly valued the way in which the scene was set during the initial in-person event by beginning with ​‘the big picture’ – a need for developing ​‘science capital’ in students, explaining why evidence informed practice is important and valuable, and why teachers should be reflecting on where the evidence directs us.

I returned from that first session buzzing with renewed energy and ideas, ready with practical tools for immediate use. We were encouraged to interpret and develop these tools for our own settings. That week I created and tweaked a structure based on the ​‘Johnstone’s Triangle’ for documenting practical experiments and embedding disciplinary knowledge.

Each twilight session broke one of the recommendations into chunks so it could be analysed in depth, enabling understanding of the evidence base, and considering ideas and resources for implementation. As a group of leaders from across the region we were able to share and address common challenges and listen to strategies for solutions.

What I most appreciated about the course was the pedagogical context that each recommendation was placed within, looking at how the evidence relates to the theory, followed by specific and trialled examples for practically translating this into classroom practice.

An example of a resource that I have developed and used, following the session on Language, was a ​‘Frayer grid’: It was first created in 1969, by Dorothy Frayer and her co-workers at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Their main purpose was to fulfil academic vocabulary demands and to help students articulate difficult vocabulary more effectively. We looked at this method as a tool for deepening scientific literacy. It provides students with a structure to look in more detail at the meanings and applications of science concepts in four different ways. It activates prior knowledge, requires details of applications and contexts, links to new concepts and stimulates critical analysis of the information. I have used it repeatedly since, with A level and KS4 students, as a tool for developing higher level thinking and have particularly enjoyed observing how the students grapple with the challenge of the ​‘Non-example’ section of the grid.

The challenge ahead is how to prioritise and share such a wealth of ideas and so the final session of the course focused on implementation. The accompanying audit tool is a structure for working with staff teams to identify strategic developmental priorities by self assessing and RAG rating our own performance. It provides excellent prompts for self-evaluation and encourages team learning and sharing good practice within departments.

Within the burgeoning body of evidence on good practice it is hard to know which professional direction to take. This course provided a much needed and effective combination of a directed and structured approach, reflective analysis of valuable evidence, and encouraging intelligent interpretation within practical ideas for implementation. The course included more enrichment than could be digested. Although we had time between each session to reflect, trial and develop ideas there is still more to look at. Over the summer break I am looking forward to some expansive time for professional reading using the many links and resources that we touched on in each session. If given the opportunity I would be delighted to actually repeat the course, and like re-reading an inspiring book, I will be able to see elements of it anew in the process of repetition.